Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• evaluate_productA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. The description adds database context but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior with invalid barcodes.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second specifies input. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has 4 params but no output schema; description covers barcode input but omits return structure, pagination, or error scenarios. Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already documents parameters. The description adds context for identifier (UPC/EAN) but doesn't explain context or jurisdiction parameters, which are self-explanatory from enums.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool evaluates a product's health, ingredient safety, ownership, and regulatory flags, using Scern database. It differentiates from sibling compare_products by focusing on single-product evaluation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains when to use it (evaluate a product via barcode) but does not discuss when not to use or alternatives like compare_products. Usage is clear but no exclusions provided.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• compare_productsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds details on output format (evaluations, ranking, best barcode) and error handling (not_found entries), which is helpful beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Within the tool's complexity and given no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs, return values, and edge cases (not_found products), making it self-contained.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional semantic value for parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states it compares 2-5 products by health score, returns evaluations and ranking, and handles not-found products. Distinguishes from sibling evaluate_product by the multi-product scope and output structure.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Implies use for comparing multiple products but does not explicitly state when to use instead of evaluate_product. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.